Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Stability and Thermodynamics of a Generalized Power-Law Dark Energy Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A nonlinear dark-energy equation of state stabilizes phantom crossing and keeps thermodynamics consistent.

desk verdict A correct and clean generalization of the group's earlier quadratic EoS to general m, but the phantom-ghost and DESI claims are overreach, and Eq. (37) contains a sign error that undermines the w(z) section. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03808 v1 pith:QJJZZ2SB submitted 2025-07-04 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

S. Kazemi , M. A. Ramzanpour , E. Yusofi , A. R. Amani This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords darkenergypower-lawequationofstatephantomcrossingdynamicalstabilitygeneralizedsecondlawapparenthorizonentropynullconditioncosmologicalattractor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies a generalized power-law dark-energy equation of state $p=w\rho-\beta\rho^{m}$, where the extra $-\beta\rho^{m}$ term supplies negative pressure. It aims to show that for $m>1$ and $w<-1$ the energy density settles to the finite fixed point $\rho^{*}=[(1+w)/\beta]^{1/(m-1)}$, so phantom-like behavior is a stable attractor rather than a runaway singularity, and no ghost instability appears. It further argues that the generalized second law of thermodynamics holds exactly in the regime $\rho\ge\rho^{*}$, because apparent-horizon entropy dominates and the condition reduces to the null energy condition. If the claims are right, the model offers a dynamical dark energy that crosses the phantom divide while remaining stable and thermodynamically consistent, matching recent survey hints of $w<-1$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective cosmological constant $\rho^{*}=[(1+w)/\beta]^{1/(m-1)}$, the non-zero fixed point of the autonomous equation $d\rho/dN=-3(1+w)\rho+3\beta\rho^{m}$. Linearizing around it gives the eigenvalue $\lambda=3(1+w)(m-1)$, whose sign fixes stability, and the same density threshold appears in the entropy argument because $\rho+p\ge 0$ is algebraically equivalent to $\rho\ge\rho^{*}$. The link between dynamics and thermodynamics is horizon-entropy dominance: using $\dot{S}_{H}=\pi(\rho+p)/H^{3}$ for the apparent horizon (radius $r_{A}=1/H$ in a flat universe), the generalized second law collapses to the null energy condition, so the stable attractor and the thermodynamically consistent region coincide.

What would settle it

Compute the full derivative $d(S_{H}+S_{m})/dt$ for the power-law fluid with a realistic matter entropy current; if it turns negative for some $\rho\ge\rho^{*}$ with $m>1$ and $w<-1$, the paper's GSL claim fails. Alternatively, a numerical perturbation of $\rho$ around $\rho^{*}$ showing runaway growth at higher order would falsify the attractor claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-trivial fixed point $\rho^{*}$ saves the phantom regime. Around $\rho^{*}$, density perturbations decay at rate $\lambda=3(1+w)(m-1)$, which is negative exactly when $m>1$ and $w<-1$; this is the same combination that would be pathological in a linear phantom model. The threshold also controls thermodynamics: $\rho+p=\rho(1+w)-\beta\rho^{m}\ge 0$ is equivalent to $\rho\ge\rho^{*}$, and with matter entropy treated as negligible compared with the apparent-horizon entropy, the generalized second law $\dot{S}_{H}\ge 0$ becomes $\rho+p\ge 0$. The paper concludes that the model moves from an early de Sitter phase ($w\to-1$) to a late-time phantom-crossing attractor, with $m=2$ singled out as the natural case because the quadratic term arises from merging cosmic voids and yields $w(z)\to-1$ at high redshift and $w_{\mathrm{de}}=-1-w_{a}$ at present.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the entropy of matter inside the horizon can be neglected, so the generalized second law is tested by $\dot{S}_{H}\ge 0$ alone; if matter entropy contributes non-negligibly, the paper's GSL conclusion would need the extra term $dS_{m}/dt$, which is never computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A phantom phase $w<-1$ can end by settling at the finite density $\rho^{*}$ instead of growing to a Big Rip.
  • The quadratic case $m=2$, motivated by merging cosmic voids, gives a stable and thermodynamically consistent dark-energy component in the phantom regime.
  • The generalized second law selects the same regime as the dynamical attractor, tying thermodynamic viability to late-time acceleration.
  • The effective equation-of-state parameter $w(z)$ runs from $-1$ in the early universe to $-1-w_{a}$ today, providing a concrete phantom-crossing profile that can be tested against distance and expansion-rate data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Including matter entropy would refine the GSL test: the paper's condition $\rho\ge\rho^{*}$ is necessary but not sufficient once $dS_{m}/dt$ is non-negligible, so a full entropy-budget calculation is the natural next step.
  • The same fixed point could be mapped to a scalar-field description; if the stable phantom attractor persists there, the fluid model's stability claim would extend to a field-theoretic realization.
  • The asserted compatibility with recent dark-energy survey data is qualitative; fitting $w_0$ and $w_a$ to the distance data would quantify whether the model actually outperforms the cosmological constant.
  • The merging-void origin of the $m=2$ term predicts that cosmic acceleration is tied to void statistics, so void-catalog measurements could provide an independent, non-distance test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a barotropic dark energy model with equation of state p = wρ - βρ^m in a flat FLRW universe. It derives the analytic solution ρ(a), identifies an effective cosmological constant ρ* = [(1+w)/β]^{1/(m-1)}, performs a one-dimensional phase-space stability analysis, claims that the m > 1, w < -1 branch is a stable phantom attractor that avoids ghost instabilities, derives a Generalized Second Law condition that reduces to the null energy condition, and constructs an effective w(z) that it claims aligns with DESI DR2 observations. The homogeneous fixed-point analysis is algebraically straightforward and largely correct, but several load-bearing claims go beyond what the analysis supports: ghost avoidance is asserted without a perturbation or action-level calculation, the GSL test is a restatement of NEC under an unverified entropy-dominance assumption, the effective w(z) contains a sign error in Eq. (37), and the DESI compatibility is not quantified.

Significance. If fully supported, a nonlinear barotropic EoS that renders a phantom-like phase dynamically stable while satisfying thermodynamic consistency would be of interest to dark-energy phenomenology. The paper's clear derivation of the ρ(a) solution, the fixed-point classification, and the special-cases table are useful and likely correct. However, the advertised advances—ghost-free phantom behavior, GSL compliance, and DESI alignment—are currently not established. The homogeneous stability result is real but modest; the remaining claims either require new calculations (linear perturbations or an explicit Lagrangian, matter-entropy contribution) or are qualitative parameter flexibility. The paper therefore has a sound core but its significance is substantially weakened unless the overclaims are either rigorously supported or removed.

major comments (4)
  1. [VI, Eq. (37)] The effective equation-of-state parameter is printed as w(z) = w + β[β/(1+w) + C(1+z)^{-3(1+w)(1-m)}]^{-1}, but from p/ρ = w - βρ^{m-1} and Eq. (7) the second term must carry a minus sign. With the printed plus sign, the claimed limits w(∞) = -1 and w(0) = -1 - w_a do not follow; for the parameter region considered the second term vanishes at large z, giving w(∞) = w, in contradiction with Eq. (40). Eq. (38) has the correct minus sign, so the two equations are mutually inconsistent. Since the phantom-crossing and DESI-alignment discussion in Section VI rests on the sign-corrected expression, Eqs. (37)-(41) should be rederived consistently and the limits rechecked.
  2. [IV.D] The statement that the m > 1, w < -1 stable attractor 'avoids ghost instabilities' is not supported by the background analysis. The calculation in Section IV.C establishes only that ρ* is an attractor of the one-dimensional homogeneous flow dρ/dN. Ghost modes are properties of linear perturbations or of a field-theoretic action, and Eq. (1) is a barotropic fluid relation with no specified Lagrangian. The adiabatic sound speed at ρ*, c_s^2 = (1-m)(1+w), is positive in the claimed region but can exceed unity and does not determine the sign of a kinetic degree of freedom. A separate perturbation calculation or an explicit scalar-field/k-essence embedding is required before this central viability claim can be accepted; otherwise the text should be rephrased as homogeneous-sector stability only.
  3. [V, Eqs. (28)-(35)] The Generalized Second Law test is not an independent thermodynamic test. The paper assumes that matter entropy inside the apparent horizon is negligible compared with the horizon entropy (Section V, after Eq. (31)), so the condition becomes dS_H/dt ≥ 0. Using Eq. (30), this is exactly the null energy condition ρ + p ≥ 0, which then yields ρ ≥ ρ*. Thus the 'GSL holds' result is a restatement of NEC under an unverified entropy-dominance assumption. In particular, for phantom-like backgrounds with ρ + p < 0 the horizon entropy decreases, and a non-negligible matter entropy term could in principle restore the GSL; the paper does not compute dS_m/dt. Please either compute the matter contribution or explicitly present the result as a conditional statement, not as a validation of the GSL.
  4. [VI and Conclusions] The claimed compatibility with DESI DR2 is not quantified. No likelihood, chi-square, or comparison with the DESI contours is presented; the parameters w, β, m, C, and w_a are free, so the ability of the effective w(z) to 'shift' reflects parameter flexibility rather than a falsifiable prediction. Additionally, Eq. (41) states w(0) = -1 - w_a, but for general w in Eq. (38) the correct limit is w(0) = w - w_a; the result holds only on the special w = -1 branch used in Eq. (39). The text should either specify that branch explicitly or correct the limit, and the DESI-alignment claim should be either replaced by a quantitative comparison or withdrawn.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and IV.D] The abstract repeats the unsupported ghost-avoidance claim; it should be softened consistently with the resolution of the major comment.
  2. [I] The introduction contains a typo: 'has been been investigated' should read 'has been investigated'.
  3. [IV.E] The internal cross-reference 'Sec. ??' should be replaced with the actual section number.
  4. [III.B.5] The sentence 'Note that in all of these cases except for m > 1, ECC can only exist under condition w ≠ -1 and it is singular in w = -1' is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten; the behavior at w = -1 for m > 1 also deserves an explicit derivation.
  5. [VI, Eq. (39)] The denominator 1 - 3w_a ln(1+z) can vanish or change sign depending on w_a, which is not discussed; this affects the claimed behavior of w(z) at moderate redshift and should be addressed.
  6. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., [43] appears to have an erroneous author list); the reference list should be checked against the cited sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: stability and GSL follow algebraically from the stated EoS; the ghost-avoidance and DESI-alignment claims are overreaches or parameter flexibility, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The core derivations are self-contained. Section IV obtains dρ/dN from Eq. (1) and Eq. (6), solves the fixed point Eq. (11), and evaluates the eigenvalue Eq. (22); the attractor condition Eq. (23) follows by algebra, with no fitted parameters, imported uniqueness theorems, or hidden equivalent inputs. Section V's GSL condition, dS_H/dt = π(ρ+p)/H^3 (Eq. 30), makes the inequality equivalent to the NEC only after the paper explicitly assumes horizon-entropy dominance (Sec. V, citing [47,48]); that is a conditional mathematical equivalence, not an inversion of input and output. The w(z) expression (Eq. 37) is simply p/ρ evaluated on the solution Eq. (7), and the later DESI compatibility statement depends on the free parameter wa≡βρ0, so it is parameter flexibility rather than a forced prediction. The m>1 "avoids ghost instabilities" claim (Sec. IV.D) is not demonstrated by the background attractor analysis and would require a perturbation or action-level check; this is an unsupported inference, not circularity. Self-citations [12,13,55] motivate the merging-voids interpretation, but the stability and thermodynamic derivations do not reduce to those references. Eq. (37) additionally has a sign error that makes the w_inf=-1 limit inconsistent with the printed expression, but this is an internal consistency flaw, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built on three free EoS parameters (w, β, m) plus an integration constant C; the w(z) analysis introduces the derived parameter w_a = βρ_0. No new particles or forces are postulated. The main assumptions are the FLRW background, the ad hoc EoS, and the horizon-entropy dominance used in the GSL test.

free parameters (5)
  • w
    Linear EoS parameter; free input, not fitted to data.
  • β
    Coupling of the power-law correction; free input, sign not fixed by the paper.
  • m
    Power index of the nonlinear term; free input, with m=2 highlighted as preferred.
  • C
    Integration constant in the energy density solution (Eq. 7); sets the overall amplitude.
  • w_a
    Defined as βρ_0 in Section VI; a free parameter used to match the observed w(z) and shown to be flexible enough to mimic DESI DR2 hints.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW spacetime and the Friedmann equations (3)-(5) hold with a single perfect fluid.
    The entire analysis is based on the standard homogeneous isotropic background, Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The dark energy fluid obeys the ad hoc EoS p = wρ - βρ^m (Eq. 1), with no microphysical derivation.
    The model is postulated to study power-law corrections; its origin is not derived.
  • domain assumption Matter entropy within the apparent horizon is negligible compared to horizon entropy, so dS_m/dt can be dropped in the GSL.
    Invoked in Section V based on refs. [47,48] to reduce GSL to dS_H/dt >= 0.
  • domain assumption The apparent horizon is the relevant thermodynamic boundary and carries Bekenstein-Hawking entropy S_H = π/H^2.
    Used in Section V to compute dS_H/dt; standard but an assumption about the gravitational thermodynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability and Thermodynamics of a Generalized Power-Law Dark Energy Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJJZZ2SB

@misc{pith2026250703808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability and Thermodynamics of a Generalized Power-Law Dark Energy Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJJZZ2SB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03808}
}
abstract

We investigate a generalized power-law dark energy equation of state of the form $p = w\rho - \beta\rho^m$ in a flat FLRW universe, analyzing its dynamical stability and thermodynamic consistency. The model exhibits a rich phase space structure, with an effective cosmological constant $\rho^* = [(1+w)/\beta]^{1/(m-1)}$ emerging as a stable attractor for $(w < -1,~ m > 1)$. Notably, the universe evolves from an early de Sitter phase ($w \to -1$) to a late-time de Sitter-like one with phantom crossing ($w(z) < -1$), aligning with DESI observations. Dynamical analysis reveals that the $m > 1$ regime avoids ghost instabilities while accommodating phantom behavior, with $m = 2$ providing particular theoretical advantages. Thermodynamically, the Generalized Second Law holds when the null energy condition $\rho + p \geq 0$ is satisfied, which naturally occurs for $\rho \geq \rho^*$. The model's compatibility with both observational data and fundamental thermodynamic principles suggests it as a viable framework for describing late-time cosmic acceleration, resolving tensions associated with phantom crossing while maintaining entropy dominance of the cosmological horizon.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The fixed points for the effective energy densityρ ∗ are: ρ∗ =± r β 1 +w .(13) Real solutions exist if β/(1 + w) ≥ 0

    Casem=−1 Form=−1, the EoS takes the form: p=wρ− β ρ .(12) The second term resembles the Chaplygin gas, which has been widely studied as a unified dark energy-dark matter 3 model [14, 29]. The fixed points for the effective energy densityρ ∗ are: ρ∗ =± r β 1 +w .(13) Real solutions exist if β/(1 + w) ≥ 0. These solutions can act as attractors or repellers,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Such models have been used to describe dark energy with a con- stant offset and are consistent with certain observational constraints [31, 32]

    Casem= 0 Form= 0, the EoS reduces to: p=wρ−β.(14) The fixed point is: ρ∗ = β 1 +w ,(15) which corresponds to an affine equation of state. Such models have been used to describe dark energy with a con- stant offset and are consistent with certain observational constraints [31, 32]

    work page

  3. [3]

    Casem= 1 2 Form= 1 2 , the fixed point satisfies: ρ∗ = β 1 +w 2 .(16) This case exhibits behavior akin to a transition between matter-like and dark energy-dominated phases, as dis- cussed in the context of non-linear EoS models [10, 33]

    work page

  4. [4]

    Casem= 2 Form= 2, the fixed point is: ρ∗ = 1 +w β .(17) This quadratic case has been analyzed in detail and can model complex dynamical regimes, including phantom crossing and late-time acceleration [9, 17]

    work page

  5. [5]

    Caseβ= 0 When β = 0, the EoS simplifies to p = wρ, with the fixed point at ρ∗ = 0 for w̸ = −1. This corresponds to the standard linear fluid model, which has been exten- sively studied in the context of dark energy and cosmic acceleration [18, 34].Note that in all of these cases except for m >1, ECC can only exist under conditionw̸ = −1and it is singular ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Vacuum Solution Stability Forρ= 0, the eigenvalue simplifies to: λ=−3(1 +w),(21) leading to two distinct cases: • Quintessence-like (w >− 1): λ < 0 (stable at- tractor) • Phantom-like (w <− 1): λ > 0 (unstable re- peller) This behavior matches known results for linear dark energy models [34?]

    work page

  7. [7]

    Non-trivial Solution Stability For non-trivial vacuum-like ρ = ρ∗, the eigenvalue becomes, λ= 3(1 +w)(m−1),(22) with stability determined by, (1 +w)(m−1)<0 (Stability condition) (23) This leads to several physically interesting regimes: •m >1 withw <−1: Stable phantom attractor •m <1 withw >−1: Stable quintessence attractor •Other combinations: Unstable s...

    work page

  8. [8]

    A. G. Riesset al., The Astronomical Journal116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Perlmutteret al., The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    S. Perlmutteret al., The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  2. [11]

    Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  3. [12]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Reviews in Relativity4, 1 (2001)

    2001

  4. [13]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physics Letters B545, 23 (2002)

    2002

  5. [14]

    Pietrobon, A

    D. Pietrobon, A. Balbi, M. Bruni, and C. Quercellini, Phys. Rev. D78, 083510 (2008), arXiv:0807.5077 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Quercellini, M

    C. Quercellini, M. Bruni, and A. Balbi, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 5413 (2007), arXiv:0706.3667 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Z.-K. Guo, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and Y.-G. Ma, Physical Review D72, 023504 (2005)

    2005

  8. [17]

    K. N. Ananda and M. Bruni, Physical Review D74, 023523 (2006)

    2006

  9. [18]

    K. N. Ananda and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D74, 023523 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512224

    2006 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Mohammadi, E

    S. Mohammadi, E. Yusofi, M. Mohsenzadeh, and M. K. Salem, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525, 3274 (2023), arXiv:2309.07826 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Moshafi, A

    H. Moshafi, A. Talebian, E. Yusofi, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101524 (2024), arXiv:2403.02000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. K. Sen, Physical Review D66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  13. [22]

    Li and J

    H. Li and J. D. Barrow, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society375, 603 (2007)

    2007

  14. [23]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physical Review D68, 123512 (2003)

    2003

  15. [24]

    Alam and R

    N. Alam and R. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D95, 123508 (2017)

    2017

  16. [25]

    Wang and X

    Y. Wang and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.865, 123 (2018)

    2018

  17. [26]

    C´ ardenaset al., Phys

    J. C´ ardenaset al., Phys. Rev. D102, 103505 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    Camara and J

    N. Camara and J. A. S. Lima, Physical Review D73, 123523 (2006)

    2006

  19. [28]

    B. Wang, Y. Gong, and E. Abdalla, Physical Review D 74, 083520 (2006)

    2006

  20. [29]

    Wang and L

    Y. Wang and L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D94, 063519 (2016)

    2016

  21. [30]

    Kang and J

    Q. Kang and J. Lee, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 145012 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Bamba and S

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov, SciPost Phys.2, 027 (2017)

    2017

  23. [32]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, International Journal of Modern Physics D15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  24. [33]

    Tsujikawa, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 214003 (2013)

    S. Tsujikawa, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 214003 (2013)

    2013

  25. [34]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Physics Reports692, 1 (2017)

    2017

  26. [35]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophysics and Space Science342, 155 (2012)

    2012

  27. [36]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Physics Letters B511, 265 (2001)

    2001

  28. [37]

    Bilic, G

    N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper, and R. D. Viollier, Physics Letters B535, 17 (2002)

    2002

  29. [38]

    Quercellini, M

    C. Quercellini, M. Bruni, and A. Balbi, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, 5413 (2007)

    2007

  30. [39]

    Pietrobon, A

    D. Pietrobon, A. Balbi, and M. Bruni, Physical Review D78, 083510 (2008)

    2008

  31. [40]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. C. Paul, N. K. Dadhich, S. D. Maharaj, and A. Beesham, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 6927 (2006)

    2006

  32. [41]

    R. R. Caldwell, Physics Letters B545, 23 (2002)

    2002

  33. [42]

    A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B511, 265 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0103004

    2001 arXiv

  34. [43]

    B. C. Roy, A. Chanda, and B. C. Paul, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 175009 (2024), arXiv:2401.00782 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    S. M. Carroll, AIP Conference Proceedings743, 16 (2004)

    2004

  36. [45]

    Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    P. Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  37. [46]

    Collaboration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12345 (2024)

    D. Collaboration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12345 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physical Review D68, 123512 (2003). 8

    2003

  39. [48]

    D. J. Eisensteinet al., The Astrophysical Journal633, 560 (2005)

    2005

  40. [49]

    Bousso, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 825 (2002)

    R. Bousso, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 825 (2002)

    2002

  41. [50]

    E. A. B. Wang and R. B. Mann, Physical Review D74, 083520 (2006)

    2006

  42. [51]

    Cai, Physics Letters B602, 8 (2004)

    R.-G. Cai, Physics Letters B602, 8 (2004)

    2004

  43. [52]

    Z. R. D. Bak and M. Zubair, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 055017 (2010)

    2010

  44. [53]

    E. N. S. M. Jamil and M. R. Setare, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014, 032 (2014)

    2014

  45. [54]

    N. K. M., S. Nelleri, and N. Poonthottathil, Phys. Rev. D109, 063528 (2024), arXiv:2308.03084 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    C. A. Egan and C. H. Lineweaver, The Astrophysical Journal710, 1825–1834 (2010)

    2010

  47. [56]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  48. [57]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    2003 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Giar` e, M

    W. Giar` e, M. Najafi, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and J. T. Firouzjaee, JCAP10, 035 (2024), arXiv:2407.16689 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [61]

    L. A. Escamilla, W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP05, 091 (2024), arXiv:2307.14802 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Yusofi, Mod

    E. Yusofi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1850219 (2018)

    2018

  54. [63]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse), (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse), (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Benisty, A.-C

    D. Benisty, A.-C. Davis, and N. W. Evans, Astrophys. J. Lett.953, L2 (2023), arXiv:2306.14963 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.